|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.244.9.241
In Reply to: Out of curiosity posted by AJinFLA on February 24, 2007 at 08:35:02:
Every HK solid state amp I've heard sounds dead - boring and uninvolving. By contrast the current Creek Evo and Destiny amps are very good. So are the Arcam Diva A70 and A90: dynamic, involving, resolving, and make music enjoyable to listen.
Follow Ups:
Which part causes this problem in the HK? I have an HK integrated which is better than my two NADs.I have compared the pre and power sections separately and I find the HK is better..It is a 15 year old amp,solidly built,big, with solid speaker connections and excellent build,except for a wobbly volume knob.Model 6800
Hi Bill,When I have listened to HK integrated amplifiers and receivers, it has been as an entire amplifier. I have not listened to the sections separately.
I have an old NAD Monitor 7000 receiver which I used as one of the evaluation amplifiers while voicing my on-wall speakers. It's an OK unit (its sins mostly are of omission) but the Creek and Arcam integrated amplifiers I heard on the same set of speakers were noticeably better (clearer, better resolution, more dynamic and lively). What makes a transistor amplifier good and another not-so-good is a mystery to me.
Hi DonaldAny idea what parameters are accounting for this phenomenon? Are all other constraints being held equal when this evaluation was made?
I've heard all three brands, but never on the same speakers (reactive load) in the same room with the same source chain, with matched levels, unsighted, etc.
I actually never been able to hear through an entire system (speakers/room, etc.)and isolate the sound of an amplifier itself, unless it was my own (where the variables are more constant), under carefully controlled circumstances. Even then, I may hear extremely subtle differences amongst the non malfunctional ones, which could well be accounted for by my mood.
I actually used an HK reciever to drive the tweeter and mid channels of my last design. Perhaps I need to reassess my evaluation methods?cheers,
AJ
p.s. did you ever pick the JBL coax? Would love an NRT version with much lower rear masking than the massive JBL rear assembly)
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Hi AJ,I heard both the Arcam and Creek integrated amps while out demonstrating my new Sonic Décor on-wall speakers to dealers. I'm not normally impressed by solid state amps but these two lines caught my attention. I've heard various HK amps and receivers at work.
For your speakers, I recommend trying another amp than a HK receiver to power the mids and highs. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised!
What makes an amp sound dynamic, resolving, involving, and fun, while others don't, has to lie beyond standard frequency response, swept THD, and IM measurments. I would suspect it has to do with the behavior of an amplifier with dynamic, non-periodic signal content (like music) while powering complex, reactive loads (real speakers). I'm sure some of these amplifier designers have developed their own design recipe but doubt they'll be disclosing them any time soon! My forte is speakers and have a full-enough plate as it is designing transducers and systems, although I have designed an interesting all-triode, feedback-less, low output impedance phono preamp which I need to build up.
Thanks for the reminder about the JBL coax. We've been busy at AuraSound these past months with OEM laptop speaker and TV speaker projects and an interesting amplified speaker system for the iPod with a customer. But after that project starts production, I want to investigate developing a coincident coax with NRT motor structure for the mid-woofer.
DN - I heard both the Arcam and Creek integrated amps while out demonstrating my new Sonic Décor on-wall speakers to dealers. I'm not normally impressed by solid state amps but these two lines caught my attention. I've heard various HK amps and receivers at work.That sounds a little less controlled than I would prefer before casting judgement on the "sound" of an amplifier :-).
DN - For your speakers, I recommend trying another amp than a HK receiver to power the mids and highs. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised!
I have had dozens of amps in my systems throughout the years (still own several). That is precisely why I use the HK. I suspect this is also why Dr. Geddes chose to use a Pioneer receiver when demoing his speakers to prospective *paying* customers. A rather important instant to impress IMHO http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Observations and Thoughts.pdf
What I have found over the years, is that with my active, high resolution speakers, the differences between amplifiers becomes diminishing(ly) small, as long as the amplifiers are well designed. I certainly do not hold that view for passive loudspeakers driven by say, a valve amplifier, where things tend to get a little too chaotic for me. As they say, one mans chaos is another mans "sweetness" and "musicality":-).DN - What makes an amp sound dynamic, resolving, involving, and fun, while others don't, has to lie beyond standard frequency response, swept THD, and IM measurements. I would suspect it has to do with the behavior of an amplifier with dynamic, non-periodic signal content(like music) while powering complex, reactive loads (real speakers).
It always has. But not through some secretive magic, but rather by solid design principles found in scientific textbooks, as I'm sure you would agree.
DN - I'm sure some of these amplifier designers have developed their own design recipe but doubt they'll be disclosing them any time soon!
The Colonel certainly won't be divulging his secret recipe anytime soon either :-). The issue that I have with that perception is this:
If I made a car that got 50 MPG using the standardized tests for all other cars, it would be plastered in big, bold print in all my ads, not kept a secret. *How* I did it would be the secret left to my competitors to attempt to reverse engineer. So why would Creek or Hi end audio Brand X not clearly show what measured performance criteria allows their amplifier (or widget) to sound "more detailed, better,etc." in a standardized test, then leave it to their competitors to figure out how to engineer this. Why the big secret? Should they not have this "real" improvement in bold print? Why so vague where you leave it to purely subjective opinion, where for every two people saying, yeah, this thing sounds like the cats meow, two more are saying it sounds like a barking dog. Then who is right? With no standards whatsoever? Sounds great. No it doesn't. On and on it goes...DN - My forte is speakers and have a full-enough plate as it is designing transducers and systems, although I have designed an interesting all-triode, feedback-less, low output impedance phono preamp which I need to build up.
I haven't owned a record in maybe 20 yrs :-).
DN - Thanks for the reminder about the JBL coax. We've been busy at AuraSound these past months with OEM laptop speaker and TV speaker projects and an interesting amplified speaker system for the iPod with a customer. But after that project starts production, I want to investigate developing a coincident coax with NRT motor structure for the mid-woofer.
I look forward to it, since that fits my design philosophy. The number of true midrange/tweeter coaxials with greater attention paid to the surround/cone/mouth waveguide is next to zero. PHL, TAD and KEF are exceptions, but non-DIY friendly. Might have some commercial value if done just right too :-).
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Hi AJ,You make several good points, to which I will add these comments:
1. A good magazine that evaluates hi-fi products in controlled, blind tests with a listening panel is the UK magazine Hi-Fi Choice. A hi-fi system is as good as its weakness component, be it the source, amplifier, speakers, or listener. On Creek's website they have posted on the Hi-Fi Choices recent group tests of similarly price integrated amplifiers. They include all the usual measurement data in addition to the panel's listening results. All the amps measure more-or-less "good", but sound different. Always interesting reading.2. Your car analogy certainly is valid for objective figures of merit: gas mileage, horsepower, 0-60 acceleration, braking 100-0, etc. However other attributes like how a car feels or handles, I believe, cannot be defined quantitatively through traditional, simple means. For example, a BMW drives, handles, and "feels" a certain way. To begin to quantify this would require multi-axis accelerometers, concurrent torque measurements, etc., and hopefully there should be some correlation. A different car, like a Corvette, will have a different set of data. Which do people like or prefer is subjective and people will have their own preference. I believe the same applies to wines, whiskeys, music, and audio because these are more subjective experiences.
3. I know of no lab test which can provide a result and figure of merit for an amplifier's "clarity" or "involvement". The closest I know is Leonard Nowitz and Peter Qvortrup's method of comparison by contrast:
http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/art_audio_hell.shtml4. It has always been by belief that if people can hear characteristics that they can't exactly measure and identify by their available test methods, then this does not discredit what people heard. To me it means further methods of tests need to be developed and explored. Here's a personal example: In 1992 I bought a Sony home DAT recorder to use with my binaural recordings I was doing while in school. The unit received a good review in Audio magazine with excellent measured results. I was so proud of my purchase and I took it down to the Caltech Music Lab to show off. Down there was a Revox B77 MkII open reel tape recorder. I did some comparison live recordings on the Sony DAT and Revox and was shocked: The Revox sounded better and more real. I wanted the Sony be the better sounding unit, but it wasn't. And there were a few of us there for this comparison and all heard the difference.
Here's another good listening example: James Boyk on his Performance Recordings label recorded one of his concerts both analog and digital from the same microphone feed. Both recorders were considered state-of-the-art respectively at the time. The album was issued on LP and CD, and on the CD he included both the analog and digital recordings. This recording was done at Dabney Lounge at Caltech which also had a special, permanent cable feed to the music lab. With this setup, we could hear live-feeds in the music lab of the same piano, microphones, etc without any recording medium. Using this as a reference to judge the recordings, the analog LP was closest to sounding like the live feed.
5. My amplifier and loudspeaker evaluation experiences have been predominately with passive loudspeakers or hybrid: active bass-midrange crossover and passive midrange-treble crossover.
6. With active speakers they should provide an easier load to an amplifier and may allow various amplifiers to offer a more similar performance. However then there is the added circuitry of the electronic crossover with its sonic characteristics. When developing my Sequence speaker, my EE friend designed both discrete solid state and triode vacuum tube versions. Both measure with extremely wide bandwidth to beyond 1 MHz, have very low noise floor (which was particularly challenging to do with tubes and why we chose the high transconductance 6C45), very low measured distortion, low output impedance, high input headroom, and good current drive. However upon listening they sounded different: The vacuum tube unit was more clear, dynamic, lively, greater resolution, and involving than the transistor unit. Why this is, I don't exactly know.
7. One more example: In the summer of 1993 a friend and I each were designing a set of monitor-sized speakers. We did measurements, crossover simulations with SPICE, etc. At the Caltech Music Lab we had a couple "workhorse" amplifiers: A Hafler solid-state and a McIntosh MC275 tube. While listening and evaluating my speaker, on some classical pieces I could hear some sort of unnatural prominence on the French horns when powered by the McIntosh, but not by the Hafler. I dismissed this as an artifact of the "less accurate" tube amplifier. Later when I returned home and played the speakers with the same music through my Sugden AU41 solid-state amplifier, I heard this same prominence. Both the Hafler and Sugden have similar measurements (wide bandwidth, low distortion, low output impedance), but for some reason the Hafler did not have the resolving power to show there was a problem with my speaker design. I got so mad...
Needless to say, there are many "mysteries" of audio yet to be resolved and fully understood. But this still will not change the fact that people have their own listening preferences.
1) I'm vaguely aware of this publication. I will look into it further. Of course, the financial survival of magazines like this depends heavily upon these beliefs and their promotion, do they not?2) I saw this argument coming. The subjective difference in performance in the car was designed in, by engineers changing numbers (I use to race myself). It is not random, or magic. The test driver supply's the subjective feedback. The engineer changes numbers. The same applies to an audio component. If Creek et al is consistently creating designs that sound better, then it must be by engineering design. If is not, then it is by Black Magic, which I cannot accept.
If the Engineers at Creek can measure these differences, then they can design it into the product. If they cannot measure these parameters, then they cannot design it into the product. Maybe an Alchemist could, but not an Engineer.
BTW, I would bet a large sum of money that if Sony was to rebadge the *exact* same Creek amplifier with one of their faceplates, the sound would degrade significantly.3) Nor do I, but that does not stop such claims from being made in "hi-end" audio...quite often :-).
4) True. But I am also aware that people have heard differences in tests when absolutely nothing has changed. So there might be some ground in between.
For every example like the one given I could probably give you 10 where the opposite was true. That is far from universal and also very subjective in nature, so conclusions can be, well, rather inconclusive.5)I've seen your site :-).
6) There is added circuitry with sonic signature in passive crossovers. More so IMHO when placed between the amplifier outputs and transducer. There is added circuitry of electronics with its sonic characteristics from the time the sound wave hits the recording microphone diaphragm. I tend not to pin point it only at certain locations ;-0.
7) We are all a product of our experiences.
The journey continues.
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
The subjective difference in performance in the car was designed in, by engineers changing numbers (I use to race myself). It is not random, or magic. The test driver supply's (sic) the subjective feedback.Sure, the engineers change spring rates, weight bias, stabilizer bar offsets, tire pressure etc. to fine tune the handling state. So what is the metric that quantifies the degree of under/oversteer present in a car?
"If they cannot measure these parameters, then they cannot design it into the product." (damn HTML tags not working)
rw
Hi AJ,Yes, if a company is consistently creating a better sounding design, then it is intentional and not accidental or black magic. Perhaps they have developed a new, proprietary testing procedure, who knows. Take Lavardin for example, possibly they are on to something:
http://www.lavardin.com/lavardin-indexE.htmlWhen cd's first were released and many people complained of the sound, people checked their frequency response, distortion, wow & flutter, etc and saw no signs of "problem". Not until years later did jitter, for example, become discussed and measured. But even since this discover, most players sold are still plagued with jitter.
Yes, there is brand name snobbishness and prejudice that may affect how one perceives the preformance of a product, but I have read plenty of product recommendations in Hi-Fi Choice over the years for mainstream brands like Sony, Pioneer, etc.
Having worked for some large audio companies, people would be surprised (I know I certainly was) how few (if any) of the employees and engineers at these large companies are audio enthusiasts. To most I have met it is simply a fun job and in their free time they're hotroding their cars or something else. If the employees are not genuinely interested in their field, then how can they make good sounding products? The answer most often is: They don't. This is one reason why smaller companies like Creek or Arcam tend to produce better sounding products, because they genuinely care and are listeners themselves.
I agree, there are instances where people claim to hear a difference when in fact none is made. However from my listening experiences which started in my teens, I try to keep an open mind and ear to what people can perceive because I would rather not spend my time trying to disprove what 9 out of 10 people thought they heard but discover and understand what that 1 in 10 did hear.
I will have to look up the patent. The Lavardin site has the usual audiophilia vagueness. But lets assume for a moment that their claims are true. That the memory effect causes SS "shrill and mechanical" sound (during sighted listening of course. For some bizarre reason, unsighted listening dramatically reduces this once clearly audible effect to near or total inaudibility) not found in tubes. Well, that is both good and bad news IMHO. The good news is that they should easily be able to demonstrate the audible superiority of their amplifiers (at low levels of course. At any decent level that I listen at, those 48 watts will be clipping severely. I doubt that this circuitry allows graceful clipping like tubes, thermal memory-less or not. The Cordell example may be extreme, but very real http://www.cordellaudio.com/rmaf/workshop5.shtml )
The bad news is, all the reviews/reviewers that I have seen comparing to sound of ultra special SS amp X (tripath, non NFB, etc, etc) to tubes, remarking how similar they sound, will become highly suspect, because they should all be inflicted with this memory effect.
Does the Creek not suffer from thermal memory? Does it have the same, unique type circuitry, just unpatented? Or does it not? If so, why does it then not sound "shrill and mechanical". Or does it?DN - Having worked for some large audio companies, people would be surprised (I know I certainly was) how few (if any) of the employees and engineers at these large companies are audio enthusiasts. To most I have met it is simply a fun job and in their free time they're hotroding their cars or something else. If the employees are not genuinely interested in their field, then how can they make good sounding products? The answer most often is: They don't.
I don't see the relevance here. The qualifications for the Ferrari F1 race team engineers are best engineers, not best car enthusiasts. The qualifications for the Yamaha Motogp team engineers are best engineers, not best motorcycle enthusiasts. I can't see where passion is mandatory, or else musicians would be making the best stereo electronic components, not engineers..and we know this is not the case at all. It certainly helps to have a keen ear for music when judging a component, but I'm sure large companies can have those too, or better yet entire listening panels like Toole does at giant Harman Int'l.
DN - This is one reason why smaller companies like Creek or Arcam tend to produce better sounding products, because they genuinely care and are listeners themselves.
The "better sounding" is an assumption I would rather not make.
DN - I agree, there are instances where people claim to hear a difference when in fact none is made. However from my listening experiences which started in my teens, I try to keep an open mind and ear to what people can perceive because I would rather not spend my time trying to disprove what 9 out of 10 people thought they heard but discover and understand what that 1 in 10 did hear.
When I attain absolute perfection in my speakers/room/interface so it is no longer the overwhelming factor, like that 1 in 10 person has, then I will likewise start paying the utmost attention to what that 1 in 10 is hearing in their amplifiers, cables, source.......
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Hi AJ,I didn't design the Creek intregrated amplifier (or any other for that matter), so I can't comment as to why it sounds good. It's not perfect (my Audio Note single-ended amps are more 3D and "you are there" experience) but is good solid-state for the money.
Music and hi-fi products are created to provide enjoyment to people. That is their ultimate goal and purpose. If a product designer or engineer is not a music or hi-fi enthusiast and doesn't have the passion, then how will they know if/when they created a good product, let alone the best they can for the budget or other constraints? No piece of test equipment will tell them so. Using you analogy, someone who works on Ferrari's F1 race team I doubt is there simply because "it's a cool job" - they're on the team because of their skills, ability, and passion. I'm no BMW fan, but I know they have a requirement for their engineers to be able to drive the Nürburgring track within a specific time. This is for the same reason.
Watch the show American Chopper. From what I've observed all their main staff involved with creating and building the bikes is motorcycle enthusiasts. I think it shows in the creativity and workmanship of their products. Samuel Adams beer is another example - their founder Jim Cook is a beer junkie and it shows in their product.
Yes, big companies have the financial resources to develop state-of-the-art R&D and test facilities, have the best evaluation rooms and equipment, etc. that small manufacturer's could only dream, yet they usually don't. Harman's facilities leave a lot to be desired in terms of demo/evaluation rooms. Their high-speed speaker switcher doesn't play speakers in a manner that is representative of actual home environments (mono - not stereo, room overly dead), and their listening panel members aren't usually audio enthusiasts which I think is a problem if one is trying to extract the most performance from a product. Toole himself is not much of a listener, as I personally witnessed one afternoon in 2000. From what I've read B&O seems to have an interesting facility which some day I'd like to visit.
If a magazine like Hi-Fi Choice, who perform group product evaluations using blind methods to a listening panel, say one product is better sounding than another, then their findings are backed through plausible testing methods. Again products from mainstream brands have received good reviews too, but in HFC they seem to receive them less frequently than smaller, specialist brands.In my experience, the best way to reduce the overwhelming influence of speaker-room interface is through directional speakers. As you know, this is one of the main design goals in my Sequence speakers. My other comment is not to expose oneself to loud sound levels from music or industry or other sound sources. These are all recent developments in mankind's history and detrimental to hearing acuity. The better a person can hear, the more likely the differences they can hear.
DN - I didn't design the Creek integrated amplifier (or any other for that matter), so I can't comment as to why it sounds good.
It's not perfect (my Audio Note single-ended amps are more 3D and "you are there" experience) but is good solid-state for the money.I'm no amp designer myself, but that is besides the point. The question was why does the Creek or other tube like SS designs not have the Lavardin described thermal distortion audible effects when they should. Or does they? Or is Lavardin (and those who claim to hear the "effect") simply wrong? Wouldn't you at least be interested in finding out?
FYI, all SE systems that I have heard have sounded rather dreadful.
But since I am incapable of hearing "through" entire systems and isolating only amplifier sound, not much conclusion can be drawn.
Perhaps it was poor "synergy" as I have often been told.
Never had a SE in my own system (with all else held constant) that I could live with. Woefully inadequate power and a bit too much syrupy sweetener special effects for my taste.DN - Music and hi-fi products are created to provide enjoyment to people. That is their ultimate goal and purpose.
Agreed.
DN - Watch the show American Chopper.
I don't watch TV. Don't even have cable (except for Internet). I'm aware of that show.
DN - Yes, big companies have the financial resources to develop state-of-the-art R&D and test facilities, have the best evaluation rooms and equipment, etc. that small manufacturer's could only dream, yet they usually don't. Harman's facilities leave a lot to be desired in terms of demo/evaluation rooms. Their high-speed speaker switcher doesn't play speakers in a manner that is representative of actual home environments (mono - not stereo, room overly dead), and their listening panel members aren't usually audio enthusiasts which I think is a problem if one is trying to extract the most performance from a product.
Their listening panels are probably *far* better at judging that "Joe strictly uncontrolled listening at home audiophile" where magic dots have a huge impact on sound, etc.
My main critique would be that their training include extensive listening to live *unamplified* sound. Then they might start hearing those darn boxes :-).
Harmans Infinity line scores at the very top in its price range (go listen to similar priced boxes) as does Revel (as good as it gets within the box paradigm). They must be doing something right.DN - Toole himself is not much of a listener, as I personally witnessed one afternoon in 2000.
Please expand. That is quite vague.
DN - From what I've read B&O seems to have an interesting facility which some day I'd like to visit.
I'd rather visit ME-Geithain to see their flow resistance techniques.
Very applicable for a great many rooms that audiophiles think they are getting good sound from. Never been impressed with B&O's speakers irregardless of their facilities.DN - If a magazine like Hi-Fi Choice, who perform group product evaluations using blind methods to a listening panel, say one product is better sounding than another, then their findings are backed through plausible testing methods.
I cannot seem to find anything about their test controls on line.
Link? I may have to purchase a hard copy at the local bookstore.DN - Again products from mainstream brands have received good reviews too, but in HFC they seem to receive them less frequently than smaller, specialist brands.
Yes, that worries me about the validity of their test methods. Unless of course the countless previous tests which show that to be quite the opposite are all flawed. Did you notice the RMAF tube vs ss test on Cordell's site? Test procedures need to be tightened up, but...
DN - In my experience, the best way to reduce the overwhelming influence of speaker-room interface is through directional speakers. As you know, this is one of the main design goals in my Sequence speakers. My other comment is not to expose oneself to loud sound levels from music or industry or other sound sources. These are all recent developments in mankind's history and detrimental to hearing acuity. The better a person can hear, the more likely the differences they can hear.
But of course :-).
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Hi AJ,First, I have made no claim that the Creek or Arcam integrated amplifiers, which I recently heard, sound like a tube amplifier. I said they sounded good.
I have not heard the Lavardin amplifier (one of my friends is their Swedish distributor and speaks highly of it), and I mentioned it for the purpose to serve as an example of people trying to find alternative measurements (like their memory distortion test) which might better correlate with people's listening findings of different amplifiers.
In my experience amplifiers and passive speakers need to be selected as a set. Some pairings offer excellent "synergy" while others do not. SET amplifiers being of lower power and high output impedance, in my opinion, require extra attention to their speaking pairing, together with room size and listening level preference. Certainly someone trying to reproduce full orchestra levels will not get far with a 8W amplifier and 82dB sensitive speakers!
I listen at lower volume levels. This has always been my style. I designed my first higher efficiency (93dB/ 8 ohms) speaker in 1998 which was a full-range, wide baffle floorstander with my quad midrange/tweeter array, like on my Sequence speakers, but with 6.5" woofers. Because of my listening level preference and the efficiency of the speakers, I can easily evaluate any amplifier regardless of power, know that it is outputing low power and is no where near clipping, and hear how it sounds. Realizing that tube amplifiers, especially SET's, have high output impedances (2 ohms average on the 8 ohm tap for a SET) compared to their solid-state cousins ( <0.2 ohms typically), I designed separate crossovers to take this loading into account to achieve the same, net frequency response.
Some tube amps sound soft and slow while others are fast, dynamic, detailed. It depends on the topology and construction.
I don't know all the details of your speakers, but if you like to listen at higher levels than I do, perhaps a SET might not be the best match for them.
A panel listening to a single speaker in mono in only one room position in an overly damped room does provide some useful data but has its limitations: Image width, depth, and focus, for example requires two speakers in stereo for judgment.
I do agree, there are bigger acoustical problems at hand in every room that simply cannot be cured by "magic dots". But do also keep in mind, music is an emotional experience, not analytical, and emotional experiences are processed in a different section the brain than analytical ones.
When I was at Boston Acoustics in 1995, they were planning and designing the building for their new (now current) location in Peabody, MA. I made the suggestion to have 2 demo/listening rooms side-by-side for performing live-feed evaluations (like we did at Caltech). You can learn a lot about the speaker by hearing someone live talk or play an instrument or make sounds and then walk next door and hear it through a speaker. This suggestion fell on deaf ears and was quickly dismissed.
I have heard the Infinity and Revel speakers and personally don't like them. I have spent particular time listening to the Revel Gem, Studio, and Salon. To me these speakers sound unnatural, amusical, and mechanical (especially the Studio and Salon). I attribute this to their use of metal cone midranges, high-order crossover slopes (which cause energy storage albeit brief and a lot of group delay particularly on woofer-midrange crossovers), and ported cabinets (high group delay in the tens of milliseconds and poor damping).
I worked in the Harman Multimedia group as a speaker engineer. Across from me sat a colleague who was also a speaker engineer and electronic designer. He was working on a new 3-piece desktop speaker system and in the final tuning stages. In his work area was also the system it was replacing. One day Floyd was walking through our area and my colleague asked if he'd like to hear the new system. Floyd sat down and listened to both the old and new systems. Afterwards when asked, he said he liked the older system of the two because "it sounded fuller". That was the extent of his description and apparently basis for decision. My colleague and I had both heard and compared these two systems. The older system did have a bit more low frequency extension than the new one, however it had poor sounding midrange and treble, sounding veiled, not clear or detailed, vague imaging, and shut-in. In comparison the new system sounded much more clear, intelligible, focused imaging, and spacious in the midrange and treble. Myself, my colleague, and others I know in the group preferred the sound of the new system. To me it was no comparison, the new system was clearly better.
You will have to go to the newsstand or bookstore and buy the magazine Hi-Fi Choice. They don't in every issue describe their test methodology, so you will have to follow them for a while or contact them directly
Continuing with my previous comments, particularly in this era of multi-channel, surround sound amplifiers and receivers, do you realize how many companies especially mass-market ones today don't design their products in-house and farm them out to OEM factories? They simply send these OEM's a feature set list, rated specifications (frequency response, power output, THD, S/N), and a drawing or rendering of the front of the unit!
Why does it worry you about the validity of Hi-Fi Choice's test methods if products from mass-market, mainstream brands receive less frequently "recommended" or "best buy" ratings than those which happen to be from smaller, specialist companies? If they genuinely are performing blind tests with a panel, then shouldn't the results be valid? It seems to me, you reap what you sow. I can assure you, the sound and performance we achieve in an AuraSound speaker driver, is not by accident or chance.
Hi Donald,lest we forget my original question "What makes the Arcam or Creek (sound) better than the HK?", the answers seem rather elusive.
Obviously, if it is something physically measurable, then you are not sure of what it is. If it is something that is not physically measurable, then I'm not sure what it is.
Your subjective experience, based on auditory memory, between the three brands in question would not fall under controlled comparison listening IMHO. Since you have stated that synergy is an important factor, perhaps the HK's you listened to had poor synergy with the other items in the system while the Creek & Arcam did not. I'm not very confident that any human would be able to tell them apart in controlled unsighted listening, but that is generally not how these type of experiences are determined.
Until I see what methods the HiFi News tests are using, I will withhold judgement. Maybe I will post it as a topic on other forums to see if more light can be shed on this matter.DN - I can assure you, the sound and performance we achieve in an AuraSound speaker driver, is not by accident or chance.
Yes, I know. The excellent measurements show this. Solid engineering is obvious.
DN - I attribute this to their use of metal cone midranges
If you used anything but metal for the coaxial drivers I would be distraught. I can get paper flavoring neo coaxs from BMS, B&C, etc.
The JBL was the only all rigid material coincident coax with proper surround that I could find. TAD makes a nice one, but not for DIY.
My only issue with the JBL is that I wish it were larger, maybe 8" diameter cone, to get further down into the lower mids upper bass region when crossing over.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Donald,It sounds like you are not going to win in this thread. However, I fully agree with you. I too am an avid reader of HIFI choice. Back in 1998 HK had a little integraded amplifier called the HK620. The hk620 was rated at 40 watts per channel and was pitted against the Arcam 8(the predecessor to the much improved 8r), the NAD 310 which was the predecessor to the current 320 and 320bee and a few other integrateds. The HK620 trounced the other amps in the group.
I went out and bought one. I felt that the HK620 was a nice little amp that was great for the money when matched up with a bright sounding source like the Marantz CD63se and Kef Coda 8 speakers. At that time all I was into was HK. I had previously owned a hk3350 reciever. However, when my system evolved and I got into tubes and amps like the McCormack DNA.5 deluxe, the HK's stripes darker sonic signature became more apparent. I also had a HK pa2100 power amp and all three of the HK's sounded very similiar.
A year or so later I purchased an Arcam 8r based on a great review in Hifi choice. The Arcam was a great little amp, bright, detailed, and colourful sounding. Not quite the level of the McCormack or my tube amps, but it was much better sounding than the HK's.
I'm sorry I sold off all the great amps I had, but I got married and needed the cash. My current amp is a stop gap until I can afford the higher end stuff again.
The only hk970, Hk's only two channel integrated amp, was recently reviewed in Hifi Choice. And it was descibed as bright and detailed. I find this quite unusual. The amp is only available in Europe and was probably voiced for the UK. It's ashame that this amp is'nt available in the US.
BTW, Your professional knowledge is much appreciated. Thank you for your insightful posts. I wish more designers and engineers would post on these boards.
Donald,I assume you work for Aurasound. The same Aurasound that purchased the licence for the Linaeum tweeter. Your company really should resurect the Lineaum dipole tweeter and stick it on a medium size bookshelf speaker. There would be a large market for those speakers, trust me.
Hi Dennis,Thanks for the product suggestion. Yes, I'm the engineering director of AuraSound.
About the Lineaum dipole tweeter, there are some challenges with it:
1. Linaeum was purchased in the 90's by MYS who was a big supplier to Radio Shack and produced models for them using the Linaeum dipole and monopole tweeters. Later Aura Systems (parent to AuraSound at the time) bought MYS to get their sales. In the audio industry and among retail buyers and the buying public, whever we mention the Lineaum tweeter to people, they almost always respond "Oh, isn't that the Radio Shack tweeter?" Once a product gets branded as "the Radio Shack" product, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get back a reputation as a "high end" product.
2. The dipole tweeter only went out to 10 kHz on axis. Off axis it went out to 14-15 kHz. We were able to improve the measured performance of the monopole some by changing the diaphragm material from a plastic film to silk fabric and magnet structure from ceramic to neodymium.
3. The dipole and monopole tweeters don't have the low-level resolution and detail ability like a good dome tweeter. I don't have a definitive answer why this is, but do have some ideas.
4. The original plastic film diaphragms were very photo sensitive and would distort when exposed to sunlight or even a flash light. This was a further motivation to change to the silk material for the monopole.AuraSound's business focus these past few years has been OEM transducers and systems. Developing a profitable retail product business is not easy and a slow road. When the financial situation is appropriate I definitely want to look into developing new AuraSound branded systems and establish a dealer network.
Donald,Thanks for the insight. I've always been interested in your products but have never owed any. I check ebay from time to time and have recently come across a small monitor that you make called the system one? I'm not sure of the name. Your website was never updated for the product. They were going for cheap on ebay, $60 or so a pair, and I was considering picking up a pair for my PC along with sonic impact amp. I can't find any specs.
Sorry to hear about the Linaeum tweeter.
Those were developed and made prior to when I joined AuraSound in the fall of 1995. They used a 5.25" paper cone woofer and Morel dome tweeter. If I recall correctly, they were a special build for Aura Systems' investors. They sounded bright and hard and need a serious crossover overhaul.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: